The Commons Bar Mk VIII - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
Ruitker
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6861
Report 4 years ago
#6861
Looking at the most recent poll Cameron isn't as popular as you think. http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/...ar-as-cameron/

Nigel Farage is the most favourable and least unfavourable party leader
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6862
Report 4 years ago
#6862
(Original post by Ruitker)
Economically there are still areas where I feel cuts could be made. The savings could be injected into measures for economic growth. Socially taking a lurch to the right, or a greater lurch to the right, wouldn't have alienated his core voters or backbench MP's.

His social policies sit nicely with me. I agree with most of his social policy. The economic record isn't fantastic but it's preferable to the spend, spend, spend and just increase taxes on the rich to pay for it approach.
Well the problem Cameron has is that he's gone far enough to annoy his core but not far enough to reach out to new voters. He could move to the social right and get the core back but I don't think he'd get a majority from it. What he needs to do is find a strategy to take the aspirational people of our larger cities like Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh but right now I don't see anything that will do so.

I believe Portillo has likened this to the Peel divide in the 1800's over the Corn Laws I believe.
0
Ruitker
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6863
Report 4 years ago
#6863
(Original post by Rakas21)
Well the problem Cameron has is that he's gone far enough to annoy his core but not far enough to reach out to new voters. He could move to the social right and get the core back but I don't think he'd get a majority from it. What he needs to do is find a strategy to take the aspirational people of our larger cities like Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh but right now I don't see anything that will do so.

I believe Portillo has likened this to the Peel divide in the 1800's over the Corn Laws I believe.
If I was his strategist I would advise going socially right to attract back the core but also become very much pro middle and upper class. Becoming the party of the middle class pulls in the new age, financially pinched professionals who are starting to reach a £45k salary but don't qualify for welfare. Forget the working class for now. They may make up the largest social group but they're also most unlikely to vote come elections.

Interesting comparison to make there but I think the split in the party was caused by Disraeli's reaction to Peel's actions rather than Peel's actions. I do agree Cameron will end up going the same way as Peel.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6864
Report 4 years ago
#6864
(Original post by Ruitker)
If I was his strategist I would advise going socially right to attract back the core but also become very much pro middle and upper class. Becoming the party of the middle class pulls in the new age, financially pinched professionals who are starting to reach a £45k salary but don't qualify for welfare. Forget the working class for now. They may make up the largest social group but they're also most unlikely to vote come elections.

Interesting comparison to make there but I think the split in the party was caused by Disraeli's reaction to Peel's actions rather than Peel's actions. I do agree Cameron will end up going the same way as Peel.
The middle class will be with the Tories on election day which is the reason Labour will be deprived of a majority. While its too late for 2015 I don't think they can ignore those poorer for long. In 2010 Cameron actually got an English majority of 31, they are in coalition now because across Scotland, Wales and the north east they gained a grand total of 6 seats and even more pitifully could not breach 30% of the vote. Hence my comments regarding the need for a strategy to get new, younger voters. The cities I mentioned have seen great success and should be ripe Tory territory.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6865
Report 4 years ago
#6865
I think Portillo's point is that the party eventually took the leap even if they were kicking and screaming.
0
Blue Meltwater
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6866
Report 4 years ago
#6866
(Original post by Ruitker)
Forget the working class for now. They may make up the largest social group but they're also most unlikely to vote come elections.
Needless to say, I shan't be voting Tory/UKIP next year.
0
Mazzini
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6867
Report 4 years ago
#6867
(Original post by Rakas21)
To be fair, while i consider it one of the lowest priorities as opposed to quite high for Ukip (keeping it forces deeper cuts in departments which actually need it) i'm not opposed to the idea of rolling back to emergency aid.
It's in our interests to do the whole foreign aid thing though...

(Original post by tehFrance)
Speaking of UKIP, I'm apparently subscribed to their newsletter :nothing:
:console:

(Original post by ukip72)
Great news from Doncaster, another defection to coincide with the Tory conference would be good.

EDIT: Just seen the video on BBC News, fantastic reaction from the UKIP conference.
You actually believe the UKIP ****?

(Original post by Green_Pink)
In no world is Cameron anything approaching "left leaning". He's just less far to the right than UKIP and many of his backbenchers.
PRSOM.
0
Cryptographic
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6868
Report 4 years ago
#6868
Does anyone reckon that a UK regionalist party is going to start any time soon? Looking back through the history there have been so many attempts to get them going individually, I could see them easily get going and competing on a SNP, SDLP/Sin Fein, Plaid, MK ticket. Which other parties (if any) do people think will add something to the House?
0
ukip72
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#6869
Report 4 years ago
#6869
(Original post by Mazzini)
You actually believe the UKIP ****?
Believe what? :confused:
0
Mazzini
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6870
Report 4 years ago
#6870
(Original post by ukip72)
Believe what? :confused:
Farage's rhetoric. And, y'know, the policies.
0
ukip72
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#6871
Report 4 years ago
#6871
(Original post by Mazzini)
Farage's rhetoric. And, y'know, the policies.
I don't agree with all UKIP policies but many I do and they are the party that most closely represent my views. I agree with most of what Farage says.

Why do you have to act so shocked that I might be in agreement with the party that I obviously support?

I find it equally bemusing that anyone would be in agreement with most of the drivel that comes out of Nick Clegg's mouth.
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6872
Report 4 years ago
#6872
In most cases, UKIP and Farage say things as it is and aren't afraid to say the truth- the same can't be said for the other parties in my opinion!


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6873
Report 4 years ago
#6873
(Original post by adam9317)
In most cases, UKIP and Farage say things as it is and aren't afraid to say the truth- the same can't be said for the other parties in my opinion!

Posted from TSR Mobile
That is admirable but policies are what makes the country a better place, not honesty.

I doubt Hitler or Lenin were dishonest yet they ruined their countries.
0
Ruitker
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6874
Report 4 years ago
#6874
(Original post by Mazzini)
It's in our interests to do the whole foreign aid thing though...


That's debatable on all levels as the Spectator points out. International aid is a moral crusade more than it is a genuine attempt to help the needy. The apologists on the left view it as an obligation. It wouldn't be so bad if international aid benefited people and made a difference but it doesn't. The small differences it makes are not worth the £12bn annual cost.



"The idea that large donations can remedy poverty has dominated the theory of economic development — and the thinking in many international aid agencies and governments — since the 1950s. And how have the results been? Not so good, actually. Millions have moved out of abject poverty around the world over the past six decades, but that has had little to do with foreign aid. Rather, it is due to economic growth in countries in Asia which received little aid. The World Bank has calculated that between 1981 and 2010, the number of poor people in the world fell by about 700 million.


More than a quarter of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer now than in 1960 — with no sign that foreign aid, however substantive, will end poverty there. Last year, perhaps the most striking illustration came from Liberia, which has received massive amounts of aid for a decade. In 2011, according to the OECD, official development aid to Liberia totalled $765 million, and made up 73 per cent of its gross national income. The largest expenditure of foreign aid in Libera has been on education. It has been for over a decade yet last year in a graduating class who had received education at international taxpayer's expense since a young age sat an exam where every one of the 25,000 students failed. All of the aid is still failing to provide a decent education to Liberians.


Many factors have kept sub-Saharan Africa poor from famines, civil wars etc... but huge aid flows appear to have done little to change the development trajectories of poor countries, particularly in Africa. Why? As we spell out in our book, this is not to do with a vicious circle of poverty, waiting to be broken by foreign money. Poverty is instead created by economic institutions that systematically block the incentives and opportunities of poor people to make things better for themselves, their neighbours and their country.


The poor don’t pull themselves out of poverty, because the basic ability to do so is denied them. You could see this in the protests behind the Arab Spring: those in Cairo’s Tahrir Square spoke in one voice about the corruption of the government, its inability to deliver public services and the lack of equality of opportunity. Poverty in Egypt cannot be eradicated with a bit more aid. As the protestors recognised, the economic impediments they faced stemmed from the way political power was exercised and monopolised by a narrow elite. This is by no means a phenomenon confined to the Arab world. That the poor people in poor countries themselves understand their predicament is well illustrated by the World Bank’s multi-country project ‘Voices of the Poor’. One message that persistently comes across is that poor people feel powerless, as one person in Jamaica put it, ‘Poverty is like living in jail, living under bondage, waiting to be free.’ Another from Nigeria put it like this: ‘If you want to do something and have no power to do it, it is talauchi [poverty].’ Like black people in South Africa before 1994, poor people are trapped within extractive economic institutions. But it is not just the poor who are thus trapped. By throwing away a huge amount of potential talent and energy, the entire society condemns itself to poverty.


The key to understanding and solving the problem of world poverty is to recognise not just that poverty is created and sustained by extractive institutions — but to appreciate why the situation arises in he first place. Again, South Africa’s experience is instructive. Apartheid was set up by whites for the benefit of whites. This happened because it was the whites who monopolised political power, just as they did economic opportunities and resources. These monopolies impoverished blacks and created probably the world’s most unequal country — but the system did allow whites to become as prosperous as people in developed countries.


The logic of poverty is similar everywhere. To understand Syria’s enduring poverty, you could do worse than start with the richest man in Syria, Rami Makhlouf. He is the cousin of President Bashar al-Assad and controls a series of government-created monopolies. He is an example of what are known in Syria as ‘abna al-sulta’, ‘sons of power’.


To understand Angola’s endemic poverty, consider its richest woman, Isabel dos Santos, billionaire daughter of the long-serving president. A recent investigation by Forbes magazine into her fortune concluded, ‘As best as we can trace, every major Angolan investment held by dos Santos stems either from taking a chunk of a company that wants to do business in the country or from a stroke of the president’s pen that cut her into the action.’ She does all this while, according to the World Bank, only a quarter of Angolans had access to electricity in 2009 and a third are living on incomes of less than $2 a day.


Recognising that poor countries are poor because they have extractive institutions helps us understand how best to help them. It also casts a different light on the idea of foreign aid. We do not argue for its reduction. Even if a huge amount of aid is siphoned off by the powerful, the cash can still do a lot of good. It can put roofs on schools, lay roads or build wells. Giving money can feed the hungry, and help the sick — but it does not free people from the institutions that make them hungry and sick in the first place. It doesn’t free them from the system which saps their opportunities and incentives. When aid is given to governments that preside over extractive institutions, it can be at best irrelevant, at worst downright counter-productive. Aid to Angola, for example, is likely to help the president’s daughter rather than the average citizen.


Many kleptocratic dictators such as Congo’s Mobutu Sese Seko have been propped up by foreign aid. And it wasn’t foreign aid that helped to undermine the apartheid regime in South Africa and got Nelson Mandela out of prison, but international sanctions. Those sanctions came from pressure on governments — including the British government — that would have preferred not to see them implemented.


Today it is no different. Governments don’t like cutting their ties to dictators who open doors for international business, or help their geopolitical agendas. Pressure needs to come from citizens who do care enough about international development to force politicians to overcome the easy temptation of short-run political expediency. Making institutions more inclusive is about changing the politics of a society to empower the poor — the empowerment of those disenfranchised, excluded and often repressed by those monopolising power. Aid can help. But it needs to be used in such a way as to help civil society mobilise collectively, find a voice and get involved with decision-making. It needs to help manufacture inclusion.


This brings us back to David Cameron. When answering a question at New York University almost two years ago, he put it perfectly. ‘There is a huge agenda here,’ he said. It is time to ‘stop speaking simply about the quantity of aid’ and ‘start talking about what I call the “golden thread”.’ This, he explained, is his idea that long-term development through aid only happens if there is a ‘golden thread’ of stable government, lack of corruption, human rights, the rule of law and transparent information.


As the Prime Minister says, this is a very different thing to setting an aid spending target. Promoting his golden thread means using not just aid but diplomatic relations to encourage reform in the many parts of the world that remain in the grip of extractive institutions. It means using financial and diplomatic clout (and Britain has plenty of both) to help create room for inclusive institutions to grow. This may be a hard task — far harder than writing a cheque. But it is the surest way to make poverty history."
1
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6875
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6875
(Original post by adam9317)
In most cases, UKIP and Farage say things as it is and aren't afraid to say the truth- the same can't be said for the other parties in my opinion!
UKIP's 'truths' are usually very subjective rather than objective, along with every other party. I don't think anyone has a monopoly on 'the truth' in politics.
0
St. Brynjar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6876
Report 4 years ago
#6876
(Original post by Ruitker)

That's debatable on all levels. International aid is a moral crusade more than it is a genuine attempt to help the needy. The apologists on the left view it as an obligation. It wouldn't be so bad if internationaid benefitted people and made a difference but it doesn't. The small differences it makes are not worth the £12bn annual cost.



The idea that large donations can remedy poverty has dominated the theory of economic development — and the thinking in many international aid agencies and governments — since the 1950s. And how have the results been? Not so good, actually. Millions have moved out of abject poverty around the world over the past six decades, but that has had little to do with foreign aid. Rather, it is due to economic growth in countries in Asia which received little aid. The World Bank has calculated that between 1981 and 2010, the number of poor people in the world fell by about 700 million.


More than a quarter of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer now than in 1960 — with no sign that foreign aid, however substantive, will end poverty there. Last year, perhaps the most striking illustration came from Liberia, which has received massive amounts of aid for a decade. In 2011, according to the OECD, official development aid to Liberia totalled $765 million, and made up 73 per cent of its gross national income. The largest expenditure of foreign aid in Libera has been on education. It has been for over a decade yet last year in a graduating class who had received education at international taxpayer's expense since a young age sat an exam where every one of the 25,000 students failed. All of the aid is still failing to provide a decent education to Liberians.


Many factors have kept sub-Saharan Africa poor from famines, civil wars etc... but huge aid flows appear to have done little to change the development trajectories of poor countries, particularly in Africa. Why? As we spell out in our book, this is not to do with a vicious circle of poverty, waiting to be broken by foreign money. Poverty is instead created by economic institutions that systematically block the incentives and opportunities of poor people to make things better for themselves, their neighbours and their country.


The poor don’t pull themselves out of poverty, because the basic ability to do so is denied them. You could see this in the protests behind the Arab Spring: those in Cairo’s Tahrir Square spoke in one voice about the corruption of the government, its inability to deliver public services and the lack of equality of opportunity. Poverty in Egypt cannot be eradicated with a bit more aid. As the protestors recognised, the economic impediments they faced stemmed from the way political power was exercised and monopolised by a narrow elite. This is by no means a phenomenon confined to the Arab world. That the poor people in poor countries themselves understand their predicament is well illustrated by the World Bank’s multi-country project ‘Voices of the Poor’. One message that persistently comes across is that poor people feel powerless, as one person in Jamaica put it, ‘Poverty is like living in jail, living under bondage, waiting to be free.’ Another from Nigeria put it like this: ‘If you want to do something and have no power to do it, it is talauchi [poverty].’ Like black people in South Africa before 1994, poor people are trapped within extractive economic institutions. But it is not just the poor who are thus trapped. By throwing away a huge amount of potential talent and energy, the entire society condemns itself to poverty.


The key to understanding and solving the problem of world poverty is to recognise not just that poverty is created and sustained by extractive institutions — but to appreciate why the situation arises in he first place. Again, South Africa’s experience is instructive. Apartheid was set up by whites for the benefit of whites. This happened because it was the whites who monopolised political power, just as they did economic opportunities and resources. These monopolies impoverished blacks and created probably the world’s most unequal country — but the system did allow whites to become as prosperous as people in developed countries.


The logic of poverty is similar everywhere. To understand Syria’s enduring poverty, you could do worse than start with the richest man in Syria, Rami Makhlouf. He is the cousin of President Bashar al-Assad and controls a series of government-created monopolies. He is an example of what are known in Syria as ‘abna al-sulta’, ‘sons of power’.


To understand Angola’s endemic poverty, consider its richest woman, Isabel dos Santos, billionaire daughter of the long-serving president. A recent investigation by Forbes magazine into her fortune concluded, ‘As best as we can trace, every major Angolan investment held by dos Santos stems either from taking a chunk of a company that wants to do business in the country or from a stroke of the president’s pen that cut her into the action.’ She does all this while, according to the World Bank, only a quarter of Angolans had access to electricity in 2009 and a third are living on incomes of less than $2 a day.


Recognising that poor countries are poor because they have extractive institutions helps us understand how best to help them. It also casts a different light on the idea of foreign aid. We do not argue for its reduction. Even if a huge amount of aid is siphoned off by the powerful, the cash can still do a lot of good. It can put roofs on schools, lay roads or build wells. Giving money can feed the hungry, and help the sick — but it does not free people from the institutions that make them hungry and sick in the first place. It doesn’t free them from the system which saps their opportunities and incentives. When aid is given to governments that preside over extractive institutions, it can be at best irrelevant, at worst downright counter-productive. Aid to Angola, for example, is likely to help the president’s daughter rather than the average citizen.


Many kleptocratic dictators such as Congo’s Mobutu Sese Seko have been propped up by foreign aid. And it wasn’t foreign aid that helped to undermine the apartheid regime in South Africa and got Nelson Mandela out of prison, but international sanctions. Those sanctions came from pressure on governments — including the British government — that would have preferred not to see them implemented.


Today it is no different. Governments don’t like cutting their ties to dictators who open doors for international business, or help their geopolitical agendas. Pressure needs to come from citizens who do care enough about international development to force politicians to overcome the easy temptation of short-run political expediency. Making institutions more inclusive is about changing the politics of a society to empower the poor — the empowerment of those disenfranchised, excluded and often repressed by those monopolising power. Aid can help. But it needs to be used in such a way as to help civil society mobilise collectively, find a voice and get involved with decision-making. It needs to help manufacture inclusion.


This brings us back to David Cameron. When answering a question at New York University almost two years ago, he put it perfectly. ‘There is a huge agenda here,’ he said. It is time to ‘stop speaking simply about the quantity of aid’ and ‘start talking about what I call the “golden thread”.’ This, he explained, is his idea that long-term development through aid only happens if there is a ‘golden thread’ of stable government, lack of corruption, human rights, the rule of law and transparent information.


As the Prime Minister says, this is a very different thing to setting an aid spending target. Promoting his golden thread means using not just aid but diplomatic relations to encourage reform in the many parts of the world that remain in the grip of extractive institutions. It means using financial and diplomatic clout (and Britain has plenty of both) to help create room for inclusive institutions to grow. This may be a hard task — far harder than writing a cheque. But it is the surest way to make poverty history.
I see you read The Spectator. If you're going to rip off one of their articles word-for-word you could at least say so.


As far as Cameron stands, if they kick him out then that's the election lost for the Tories. I can't think of anyone other than Hague in the current cabinet who could impose themselves enough in the next 8 months. In terms of presentation, Cameron is the anti-Miliband which is the best weapon they've got going into the election.
0
Ruitker
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6877
Report 4 years ago
#6877
(Original post by St. Brynjar)
I see you read The Spectator. If you're going to rip off one of their articles word-for-word you could at least say so.


As far as Cameron stands, if they kick him out then that's the election lost for the Tories. I can't think of anyone other than Hague in the current cabinet who could impose themselves enough in the next 8 months. In terms of presentation, Cameron is the anti-Miliband which is the best weapon they've got going into the election.
My mistake, I thought I did source it at the start

The Conservatives don't need an anti-Miliband, he'll hang himself given enough rope. Hague has had his time, Theresa May would be a nice replacement for Cameron. She could become a new Thatcher type character. Highly controversial but principled and strong.
0
St. Brynjar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6878
Report 4 years ago
#6878
(Original post by Ruitker)
She could become a new Thatcher type character.
Pretty much the only way of making Miliband seem the more appealing party leader. Having someone as polished and statesmanlike as Cameron will make the contrast between him and Miliband even starker, particularly in the debates should they occur.

Interestingly I've heard that Cameron would insist that Green leader Natalie Bennett be part of a debate if Nigel Farage is given the platform.
0
meenu89
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6879
Report 4 years ago
#6879
(Original post by Green_Pink)
Thanks


TSR is saying you quoted me in here but I can't see it?
It was an Anti- Green rant.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6880
Report 4 years ago
#6880
(Original post by St. Brynjar)
I see you read The Spectator. If you're going to rip off one of their articles word-for-word you could at least say so.


As far as Cameron stands, if they kick him out then that's the election lost for the Tories. I can't think of anyone other than Hague in the current cabinet who could impose themselves enough in the next 8 months. In terms of presentation, Cameron is the anti-Miliband which is the best weapon they've got going into the election.
The very first sentence highlights that it is from the Spectator.
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (49)
29.34%
No - I got the required grades (97)
58.08%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (21)
12.57%

Watched Threads

View All